On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:07:29PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:39:33AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > > >> cranks out a list of 44 "Invalid" issues. According to the stated > >> policy, those should be marked "Verified" eventually. > > > > Yes. Actually, I thought that I was going to stop making any > > devel releases if there were still "issues to verify" waiting > > around, but I must admit that I haven't been checking this lately.
huh, I was wrong about this. Or rather -- at one point in time, google included invalid issues under "to verify", but that seems to have been fixed. Sorry, I should have checked. > I am by now reasonably sure I remember that this has been discussed at > some point of time and did not catch my attention. So I apologize for > the show of utter surprise I put on here: it is likely that I already > would have had opportunity to comment at a more imminent time. To be fair, I don't think it was a formal GOP proposal; rather it was one of these policies that became established in bits and pieces (like the current git-cl/patchy/countdown process). At some point GOP will get around to formalizing such things. > It does not appear, however, that at least the current behavior of the > tracker with regard to searching "Issues to be verified" and the > description of the "Verified" status make it a good idea to pursue that > policy. And I don't see that the policy is reflected in our > contributors' guide. Agreed on both points. Since it was never written down, I'll withdraw the notion of changing Invalid to Verified. I think that will suffice until we have an actual formal GOP proposal for such things. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
